Evidence Hub

Antebrachial fractures in four captive polar bears (Ursus maritimus)

Lin RC, Engeli E, Prowten AW, Erb HN, Ducharme NG, Goodrich LR

Veterinary surgery : VS, 2005

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify common risk factors for antebrachial fractures of captive polar bears and to evaluate outcome after fracture repair.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study.

ANIMALS: Four captive polar bears.

METHODS: United States zoological collections were surveyed to determine the prevalence of fractures in captive polar bears. Medical records of captive polar bears that had antebrachial fractures were reviewed for signalment, history, physical and radiographic findings, fracture management, postoperative care, and outcome. Serum samples from healthy bears and bears with antebrachial fractures were assayed for 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) concentrations.

RESULTS: Nineteen fractures (12 polar bears) occurred from 1974 to 2002; 12 fractures involved the antebrachium. Management of 4 antebrachial fractures was reviewed; 3 were repaired by internal fixation and 1 by external coaptation. Fractures healed and bears were returned to exhibit on average 3 months postfracture. Of 11 serum samples assayed for 25-OHD concentrations, 6 were below normal, 1 was low normal and 4 were within normal reference intervals. The 7 bears with subnormal or low normal values were housed in 2 zoos. Subnormal vitamin D concentrations were identified in 2 of 3 bears with fractures.

CONCLUSIONS: Fracture disease is not uncommon in captive polar bears. Additional research is necessary to explore the role of nutrition in polar bear fracture disease.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Internal fixation of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free